The phenomenon of religion is one of the hardest conversations to have. I think this is best summarized by Daniel Dennett, who passed away a year ago today:

“There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion.”

This might be my stance on religion and religious values. Of course as we learn and grow, our views are subject to change. Maybe down the road I might change my mind. But right now, I think that foundational living is preposterous and serves only to comfort those in the face of imminent death, among other important purposes. 

Let me explain with the most convincing point: the fact that a literal interpretation of any theological foundational text is refuted by our current canons of basic science and human knowledge on nature and the testable process of evolution. Charles Darwin, writing in the 19th Century, changed how we view ourselves as humans, and changed the idea of religion forever. His findings altered anthropocentrism- that humans are different substantially from animals, and we are the single most important living being on Earth. His findings refute a literal interpretation of the Bible among other “works.” He was monumental for the idea we see as fundamental in our idea of science today- that we come from animals, that we evolved from natural selection and adaptation and over time we grew apart from our primordial ancestors. 

The idea I am presenting was built upon by those who reject foundational religion as a man-made device used for control (of the lower classes) and escape (for all humans who fear death). Evolution was not taught in the classrooms because, when taken for what it truly is, it rejected religion and the literal power of the church. Church was ingrained in our society for centuries before Darwin. Testable science and the scientific method- in the grand history of humanity and in the history of human thought- has only recently developed, and we are left today with religion that is not only numerous but confusing on how it blends science and a figurative interpretation of theological text. 

So going deeper, how does evolution counteract religion? Very simply, in the Islamic Quran, Adam (or man) was made of clay. That is not true. Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors six to seven million years ago. God did not spawn humans from clay. We can take rock formations or ice formations and track the history of the Earth down to its formation around five billion years ago, which refutes the idea that God created the Earth in six days. 

It’s this simple idea that many are forced to wrestle with in their lives. Or maybe it's the idea that people don’t want to know the truth, are ignorant to the truth, or follow religion simply for comfort in a world of pain and death. I would like to think that the latter is true in my outlook of general population intelligence, but many are not so convinced. 

What if evolution is wrong? That’s why they call it a theory, right? I think this is perfectly refuted from Chat-GPT (unless you think Chat-GPT is an atheist-purporting evil machine):

“It’s not just one clue—it’s a mountain of consistent, testable data from genetics, anatomy, fossils, and even geography.”

Fossil records prove that there was a gradual transition from ape-like ancestors to humans, DNA evidence proves we share a 99% similarity with today’s chimps, we share anatomical similarities with today’s chimps, we found fossils from six to seven million years ago that had combined human and ape features, and more. It’s overwhelming evidence that is simply and unapologetically contrary to foundational religion. 

Modern religion looks to combine science and religion. But here is the question: if you can’t refer to a literal interpretation of your text, how much of your text is literal and how much of it is figurative? I think most of it is figurative. But to say that “I believe in something because I can prove it is true” is much more powerful than “I believe in something for its allegorical insight.” All scripture (except Buddhism, which is most consistent with science and the Big Bang) can be taken with a grain of salt. And the same ideas found in the Bible, for example, can be found from philosophers, novelists, or can occur from personal rumination. 

I don’t have to be a follower of Christianity to believe that the single most important rule in life is “to treat others in the way you would want them to treat you.” Of course even the golden rule can have its nuances (a suicidal person can topple this whole idea) but aphorisms drawn from the bible can still be used to critique society as if the bible was all true history. 

What do I gain by proving this? These are simply my thoughts and nothing else. But I wouldn’t be writing if I knew I could be disproven. But I would also like to address some critiques to wrap up this conversation, specifically from those who might consider themselves “deists” or other sophisticated theologians.  

Deism can be accurately described as a “hands-off God.” I like to phrase this (as many Atheist philosophers typically do) as the religion of the “God of the gaps,” or when science can’t explain phenomena, the accurate explanation is to rely on God. Science is always evolving. We are learning more and more about our world through science every day. Deists assume that God created this world because some things cannot be explained. When thunder could not be explained, the assumption was that there was a thunder God, not a natural process. 

I also do not attack religion that is compatible with science. Most religions today, though, are built upon ideas that, when taken literally, are not compatible with basic science. But we know that morals can be built around things that aren’t literally true but exist as thoughts for their own value, in and of themselves.